The Misrepresentation: 13-Jan-20

That UK Docks have permission for their shed.

Event List:

1-May-19
Hi Mick,
I appreciate your arguments, but this far down the line there is
nothing we can do. Angela has talked to several relevant people,
and the point is the council gave retrospective planning. Which
they are allowed to do. We are working with Angela to negate
further issues with the site. It’s all we can do now: limit noise
and any other issues If they occur. Regards Julie
30-Oct-19
‘Dishonesty at the Town Hall’ is published. A copy sent to Emma’s Office elicited the response “Please note that if you do not provide your full address no further action will be taken on your case.” the first such message for many years.
19-Dec-19
Monitoring Officer confirms no retrospective permission for Shed:-
I can confirm that the Council as Local Planning Authority has not received a retrospective planning application from UK Docks.  It is entirely a matter for UK Docks to decide whether or not to submit such an application and the Council has no influence in that matter.
They did not have to make the decision because the Principal Planning Officer removed our complaint of January 10th 2014 from Planning Enquiries.
She concludes:
“I understand that all complaints procedures regarding this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally.”
That is what she has been told by Senior Managers of South Tyneside Council but they are hiding the fact that they mislead the Ombudsman to cover up the misuse of the complaints procedure and use that in turn to cover up the corruption in Building Control.
23-Dec-19
Advise Cllrs Hamilton and others that UK docks were not granted retrospective permission for their shed. Copied to Emma’s private email not to her office. I was aware that she was not seeing emails to her parliamentary office for some reason. Phone call to Mr Palmer at  Emma’s office on 13th January established why .
24-Dec-19
Receive acknowledgement from Emma: Good afternoon Mick, I am aware Angela and David are dealing with this, please can you let me know if there is anything needed from me. Best wishes, hope you have a lovely Christmas
24-Dec-19
To Emma: Thank you for responding to my email to Angela and the offer of help.
8-Jan-20
This orderly  and cordial if not amiable proceedings  were interrupted an email requesting my home phone number from Simon Buck (simon.buck@parliament.uk) to pass to a colleague Keith Palmer (palmerk@parliament.uk) – see 19-Dec-19.
9-Jan-20
Give home and mobile number to Simon Buck in good faith because I assumed Mr Palmer wished to talk about UK Docks lie about being granted permission for their shed – see exchange 23- & 24-Dec-19.
13-Jan-20
Returned phone call to Mr Palmer to discover he did not want to discuss the maladministration  by the Council re  UK Docks at all. Quite the opposite, he wanted to close down all conversation about UK Docks completely.
I then realised it was a mistake to have returned the call as he insinuated that I was sending vexatious emails to Emma’s Office. That call was the first time in all the years of my dealings with the Town Hall or the MP’s Office they have they been described as vexatious and says more about Mr Palmer than myself.
I therefore wish to find out what is going on in her office from Emma herself: toELBatMP13-Jan-20.pdf – Complaint sent to MP about how Mr Palmer hinted at, expensive litigation, vexatious complaints and presenting new evidence to the LGO.  What I really needed from Emma’s Office was their support, see offer 24-Dec-19,  and Mr Palmer has indicated by our exchange over the phone that he was not prepared to give it.

Posted in Misconduct, UK Docks | Leave a comment

Email to MP is Blacklisted

Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck MP
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: 26/03/2020 (12:03:46 BST)
To:  Emma Lewell-Buck MP
Cc: Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis

1 Attachment, MPemailsDec19Jan20.pdf (40 KB)

Dear Emma,

Two months ago I gave my home phone number in Amble to your husband in good faith to give to a Keith Palmer whom I assumed was your new Office Manager. When I returned his call he made it very clear that he was determined to suppress the truth about UK Dock’s shelter on River Drive. He said that any future emails from me to your office would be ignored, just filed away.
That was not what I expected to hear and I wrote and told you about the call in the evening of 13th of January only to discover his threat had been carried out when I got the auto-reply. This is the standard response to new enquiries by email to establish a contact address but I am not a new contact so it looks like Mr Palmer had used it to suppress communication. Continue reading

Posted in Abuse of Complaints System, Corruption | Leave a comment

Black-Listed

Mr Palmer (Mr Buck) had overreached himself (themselves) with his (their) use of anti-hacking software to ensure that anything from ‘Mick Dawson @ theharbourview’ did not reach the MP for South Shields.

I had agreed to give my land line number in Amble to Mr Buck on condition that Mr Palmer would discuss UK Docks and their shed but on returning a call I discovered that Mr Palmer’s intentions were not honourable as one can see from the context in which the phone call was made and in the detail of the fallout from it.

The context was that I believed the only way to stop Councils using the Ombudsman to cover over the wilful lack of planning enforcement or any other misdemeanours they wish to obscure, is for Parliament to act.

This was highlighted in the email to Emma on the evening of the 13th January 2020 then by it being overwritten it with something Mr Dawson had never done or even sugessted and that was to try and persuade an MP to influence the Ombudsman. Then a suggestion that he complain further to the Ombudsman and take legal advice!

Continue reading

Posted in Corruption, Misconduct | 1 Comment

Bad Planning- consequences of: Videos

This site does not do videos very well but these can be found on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1623960337859442/?multi_permalinks=2288890288033107&notif_id=1553257826165851&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

One shows the decking vibrating and the second what’s causing it!
Posted in Noise, Planning, UK Docks | Leave a comment

Missing Heights from UK Docks Drawing

The first detail is from a copy of a drawing 8296/2 retrieved from South Tyneside Archive in September 2013. It has been authorised by the T&WDC and although not particularly legible the height of the enclosure (cover) is shown as 118.8m. The 95.5m is a survey point some meters down from the road end survey height of 96.1m. The arithmetic gives a road end height of 12.7m

The second detail is from drawing supplied to the Council by UK Docks on September 6th 2013. It does not include the details shown above. They have been removed and the 500 had to remain a mystery for five months. It is the base height (95.500m) of the transverse section of the enclosure taken about 5m down the slipway from the landward end.

When the Council finally produced the copy of 8296/2 which was not cropped, it only went to confirm the height from the drawing produced by the agents – Maughan Reynolds Partnership Ltd – 8296/14. This gave a height of about 12.7m at the road end.

River End Detail of 8296/1B added in 2019:-

Missing height (12.5m) to hip of mansard from earlier drawing 8296/1A giving total height of 15.5m.

Posted in Planning, UK Docks | 1 Comment

Using 1B to Misinform

8296/1B was one of a pair of drawings given to the Principal Planning Officer, Mr P Cunningham on the 6th September 2013 by UK Docks.

They used the second of the drawings 1B to falsely claim, as it turned out, that height of the road end was approved at 15.5m. The Principal Planning Officer used both 1A and 1B, and the Planning Manager preferred 1A for this claim. The council are not specific about which one they are using when they misinform enquirers over the phone.

The first is a cropped version of an authorised drawing that gives the planned height of the shed at the landward end of 12.7m (roof top, 108.8m – footing height, 96.1m). Without this information one can still work out the planned height of it, from the gradient and the longitudinal section, and it confirms the river end as 15.5m which is not what UK Docks and the Council claim.

Continue reading

Posted in Misinformation/Misrepresentation, UK Docks | 1 Comment

From Cllr Hamilton 6-Mar-19

Hello All

As you are aware myself and Emma Lewell-Buck MP met with UK Docks on Friday last week when I raised a number of concerns on behalf of residents.  I apologise for the slight delay in responding but I needed to clarify a couple of points with officers first to make sure I answered as many of your concerns as possible.

Background

UK Docks are the owners of a boat yard on River Drive which is the companies Headquarters.  The main services provided from the River Drive location include repairs for boats and small ships, a marine supply store, workshop facilities and base for staff who repair and maintain ships in various locations around the world.  There are no repairs to large ships or shipbuilding on the site as the dock is not large enough for this.  The business provides jobs in the local area and offers traineeships and apprenticeships.

Issues raised

Since UK Docks opened the site on River Drive a number of concerns have been raised by residents about the operation of the premises.  My response to each of these issues are below:

Containers: As I believe you are already aware the containers have now been moved.  Some of the containers will be removed from the site while others have been moved to another location on the site which does not overlook any houses.  There was a delay in these being moved due to delays in building works being completed (see below) but hopefully this issue is now resolved.

Jetties: Although there were proposals for jetties included in the plans there has never been any confirmation of if and when these would be built.  At the moment there are no plans to build the jetties.  I have asked UK Docks to let me know if this position changes.

Lighting: UK Docks confirmed that there were some problems with lighting when the office building first opened.  This was due to a fault with the automatic lights which were not turning off when the building was empty.  As I am sure you can imagine this was a concern for the company as well as local residents.  The fault has been fixed and I have been reassured that the only lights that are on overnight are security lights that are required on sites such as this.  Given that there is street lighting in the areas these lights are unlikely to have any adverse impact on the area.

Building works: The work to build the office building was delayed as the builders contracted to do this went out of business meaning UK Docks had to complete the work themselves using local contractors.  The main building work is now complete so hopefully there will be no further issues relating to this.

Car park:  UK Docks have told me that they will be carrying out the works on the car park over the next few weeks.  While this may mean there will be some increase in noise for a short period of time I have been assured that this will not be carried out early in the morning, late in the evening or on Sundays.  There may be a need to carry out some work on Saturday mornings but this will be kept to a minimum.  Once the car park has been completed this will create a gap between houses and the area where work is carried out which should assist in reducing noise levels.

Noise reduction: The noise reduction boards that are currently in place are not MDF but a heavy duty material used in the marine industry and are seen as the most effective in reducing noise.  UK Docks are not opposed to planting trees along the border and will consider this but there are a number of issues that need to be considered before this is agreed including:  type of trees; impact of planting trees on surround properties as it is important that anything planted does not cause problems for the foundations; and whether planting trees would help reduce noise levels.  This is something we can discuss with UK Docks once the car park is finished.

Privacy: Having visited the site and attended a meeting in the office building I don’t believe there are any issues.  There is one window that faces the rear of the houses on Harbour View but it is virtually impossible to see into either the houses or the gardens from this window due to the angle of the building and the window.  If you are still concerned please let me know and I will contact UK Docks to see if there is anything that can be done to provide you with additional reassurance.

Planning: While I understand the concerns you have raised about the buildings deviating from the original plans I cannot see any way to resolve this issue.  You have said that the building is slightly wider and higher than the original plans but I have not been able to find out anything about why this happened.  As I wasn’t a Councillor at the time I was not involved in any of the discussions so can’t confirm whether this was agreed before or after building works were completed and it wouldn’t be possible to reduce the building and it isn’t financially viable to remove and rebuild it. 

I believe that many of the issues may have been caused by a lack of communication between UK Docks, the Council and residents which is something I hope will not be an issue going forward.  UK Docks are happy to talk about any concerns going forward and, if you would like me to, I can facilitate discussions as and when required.  I realise this may not be resolve all of your past concerns but hopefully it will allow us to build a relationship to prevent similar problems arising in the future.

If you have any questions or need any more information please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Regards

Councillor Angela Hamilton

Beacon and Bents Ward


Posted in Noise, Planning, UK Docks | Leave a comment

ST/1146/13

Details Page for Planning Application – ST/1146/13/COND

Site Address Tyne Slipway & Engineering Co Ltd And Harry Wilson Associates River Drive South Shields NE33 1LH

Application Progress Summary

  • Application Registered 08-10-2013
  • Comments Until 07-10-2013
  • Date of Committee
  • Decision Approve Details of Condition 14-10-2013
  • Appeal Lodged
  • Appeal Decision

Application Details

  • Application Number ST/1146/13/COND
  • Site Address Tyne Slipway & Engineering Co Ltd And Harry Wilson Associates River Drive South Shields NE33 1LH
  • Application Type Discharge of Conditions
  • Development Type Unknown
  • Proposal Discharge of Condition 3 – External Cladding, and Condition 4 – Fixing details of the mono-flex end panels – relating to previously approved Planning Application ST/0242/96UD
  • Current Status FINAL DECISION
  • Applicant Tyne Slipway & Engineering Ltd
  • Agent Maughan, Reynolds Partnership ltd
  • Wards Rekendyke
  • Location Co ordinates Easting 1 Northing1
  • Case Officer / Tel Peter Cunningham 0191 4247415
Posted in Misconduct, Planning, UK Docks | 2 Comments

View of shed end – September 2013

Frames 3 meters taller and 1 meter wider than permitted.

One can work out that the shed is taller than planned because the drawings provided by the Council show both ends of the shed to be the same and the uphill one is wrong. The gradient is nearly 3 meters.

What UK Docks and the Principal Planning Officer did not realise was that when the pillars were made vertical they pointed directly to the footings and the width of the framework could be quite accurately measured from Green’s Place.

The width was found by sighting along the pillars and placing chalk marks on the railings and measuring the distance between them. Initially the downstream pillars showed up as more than an inch (30mm) wider than their partners because the railings were set at different angles to the shed.

I returned with a plumb line and a roofers square and eventually got round to producing a consistent result; the pillars were 700mm and the total width was 13.2m. The drawing states that the pillars and cross beam are a specified standard of 685 x 254mm and that was good enough for me, especially as the error overall, was less 1%.

The reason why my measurements were slightly more than the planning officer’s was what I call parallax error i.e. quite a small error in the alignment of the actual pillars would be magnified tenfold. The distance between pillars being 5.5m and the distance to Green’s Place being 50+m.
MD 4-Mar-19

Posted in Planning | Leave a comment

Approved Drawing 8296/14

This was approved by the Planning Manager on 14th October 2013, ST114613COND Decision Notice.pdf, and the height and width can be gauged by scaling using the portal columns and roof beam.
The gable end is drawn to a scale of 1:100 and is about 16cm high.
More easily, the height could have been found from river side gable end on the A1 drawing sent to the Council for the approval of condition 4 but the detail shown on 8296/14 will have to do.

In case there is any confusion about which end of the cover is being referred to in this drawing, the cladding is designed to go on the outside and is shown on the down side of the portal column. If the drawing referred to the road end gable end it would be shown on the upside of the portal column.
More importantly there is a note on the drawing “strips to draw back to each side to allow access for boats” and the boats come up the slipway from the river.

When this was drawn in August 2013, one has to assume that the draughtsman had referred to the authorised plans from 1996 and the Legal Section of South Tyneside Council tend to confirm this. In the last stage of their complaints procedure before submission to the Local Government Ombudsman, Customer Advocacy said:

I have not considered this point further because it is clear that drawing 8296/14 . . . could never supersede the previously approved plans in terms of defining the dimensions of the approved development.

Posted in Planning | 8 Comments